Reports like these were inevitable, but that doesn't change the fact they're misguided.
Republicans quickly seized on Friday's disappointing jobs report as fresh evidence of what they say are President Obama's "job-killing" policies and further proof of the need for a new occupant in the White House next year.
At a certain level, this is almost amusing. Matt Yglesias noted this morning how "impressed" he is by conservatives' ability to "pretend to believe Obama is 100% responsible" for all economic developments a year and a half into divided government. He added, "You can't fake that kind of bulls**t, it takes real conviction."
But we can go further with this. The same Republicans who are blaming monthly job totals on the White House have argued -- last year and this year -- that GOP measures have improved the economy, and that credit for recent improvements should go to them, not the president.
The logic is incoherent: for Republicans, when there's discouraging economic news, Obama deserves all the blame. When there's good economic news, Obama deserves none of the credit. Job losses in 2010 were Obama's fault; job gains in early 2011 and 2012 have nothing do to with Obama; and tepid growth in the spring of 2012 are back to being Obama's fault again.
Remember learning the "heads I win, tails you lose" game as a kid? It's the GOP's argument in a nutshell -- whether the president deserves credit or blame for a monthly jobs report is due entirely to whether the report is encouraging or not.
But even this doesn't go far enough in explaining the absurdity on display. If we're going to assign blame to Washington policymakers for the state of the nation's job market, how is it, exactly, that Congress bears no responsibility at all? This is, after all, a Republican-led Congress that has plenty of time to fight a culture war -- I've lost count of the anti-abortion bills that have reached the House floor, including one yesterday -- but has shown passive disinterest to the jobs crisis.
Follow this pattern of events:
1. With the job market struggling, Obama unveils the American Jobs Act, a State of the Union agenda filled with economic measures, and an economic "to-do list."
2. Republican lawmakers ignore the proposals, and the job market deteriorates.
3. The GOP then blames Obama for the failure his policies, which Congress didn't pass.
I suspect the American mainstream doesn't much care about these details -- they know the economy is hurting and they know Obama's the president. But for those who care about the facts and are willing to consider the relevant details, holding the president solely responsible for today's jobs report isn't just wrong; it's silly.
As for Mitt Romney, who appears to be delirious with joy this morning, have we already forgotten that the Romney campaign, just this week, said a leader who takes an economy that was losing jobs and turns it into an economy that's adding jobs is a success? For that matter, isn't Romney the guy who's spent the last few months acknowledging that the economy has improved on Obama's watch?
Leave a Comment:
"But even this doesn't go far enough in explaining the absurdity on display. If we're going to assign blame to Washington policymakers for the state of the nation's job market, how is it, exactly, that Congress bears no responsibility at all?"
Thank you, thank you, thank you! This is a point that has been driving me nuts - it's a question that the media conveniently refuses to ask. Wasn't the 2010 mantra "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Yet they've managed to avoid the issue completely. Argh! It's frustrating.
I'd like to see a follow up question when pollsters ask the right track, wrong track question - who do you hold responsible for the wrongheaded trajectory?
Right, congress deserves a lot of the blame for what happens.
But not in 2006-2008 when Democrats ran Congress (House and Senate) and the economic collapse happened. that was entirely and 100% the President with no other possible answer allowed... right?
Good to know you're consistent in blaming Republicans regardless who was in control of what area of the Government.
Apples and oranges. The financial meltdown which began in 07 was a coalescence of years of forced Reaganomics and an executive branch which refused to regulate the industries it was charged with regulating (not, mind you, only the financial sector--remember those Bush-era Mineral Management Services 'regulators' who were found to be doing coke and having orgies with those they were meant to oversee?)
2 years of controlling congress while being at odds with executive branch is not enough to undo decades' worth of a disaster in the making. It is, however, enough to prevent the implementation of said executive's agenda. Republicans just can't seem to figure out whether they've actually done so. Either that or they're lying, manipulative bastards. You decide!
Reachel, I see 69,000 more votes for Obama I bet you those 69,000 know that Congress had nothing to with them getting work, I see this as a plus not neg.....put the mic down on that !!!!!!!!!
once again with emphasis: Rachel DID NOT write this post.
Senator Mitch McConnell blames President Obama for the bad economy - slow recovery - whatever - because he essentially got everything he asked for. And then comes out with a campaign ad that says "Vote for me because I was successful in blocking Obama's proposals" {Not a direct quote}
ummmm ... so which is it? Both can't be true.
Muddled thinking or outright deliberate hypocrisy.
I would love it if every time Speaker Johnny got in front of the press, they would ask him, "Mr. Speaker, what jobs bills are you introducing this week?"
"I suspect the American mainstream doesn't much care about these details -- they know the economy is hurting and they know Obama's the president." That's exactly right. It's easy, it's simple, and doesn't take a lot of analyzing - perfect for the typical American voter. I'm afraid, to my dismay, the re-election of Obama is not looking very likely.
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling."
We all need to quit running around like penguins with our heads chopped off. Instead we should roll up our sleeves and get to work. Talk to your neighbors. Tell them what is happening.
Right now a handful of billionaires think they own America because the rest of us are terrified of their money. Turn their investment in Crossroads USA into just another rich guy vanity expenditure. We can't give in. It is our country too.
Oh, I've talked to my neighbors alright...I must tell you I live in Texas...so you know the conversation is over before it gets started. With that in mind, it's no wonder I feel the way I do.
The President always gets the blame for a bad economy. I don't like it, you don't like it but that's what happens. With the Republicans happy to oblige with saying "no" to every Democratic proposal to create jobs and revitalize this economy, it's hard to see much changing between now & the election. Having said that, Obama has surprised me with his resilence and his ability to bounce back before overwhelming odds. I hope he can do it again.
Good luck Ron Byers in your part of the country. Please wish me well in mine. Will fight the good fight!
You live in Texas? I feel sorry for you. An entire state filled with leaders who are all hat and no cattle. I am not even sure we shouldn't give Texas back to Mexico. Giving in is the wrong thing to do.
Obama can't bounce back without our help. If you are hoping he can, help.
Right, it'd be like blaming Bush for 2006-2008 when Democrats ran the House and Senate... it's just short-sighted and foolish and Democrats should shoulder a lot of the blame for the 2008 collapse.
But people are too simple to understand that... right?
Or is that somehow amazingly and totally different from your current argument?
The republicans play the blame game, and lie in the process , because they know the democrats and media will let them get away with it.
Right, if the Republicans have the House it's all their fault.
And the crash of 2008 when Dems had the House and Senate? the rule was if it's a Republican President Republicans get all the blame.
And 2008-2010 With Dems in all three, if Republicans had any power in the past 5 years anything we do is still entirely their fault.
Clearly they're playing the blame game by not adhering to your ever changing standards regarding who is to blame... and your standards are always valid, and change every time the situation changes to make sure you're blaming republicans.
How dare they play the blame game... they're evil... and you're really self-aware.
Utopian world.
Politicians come out and say, "We as politicians, collectively, failed the citizens of the US. Therefore, ALL of us need to be replaced by someone who can get the job done."
The Blame Game .... As a registered independent, than you should know about Solyndra before making accusations about Romney. The DOE Inspector General Greg Friedman testified in March 2011 - long before Solyndra went under - that his office was conducting a number of stimulus-related investigations, including "the directing of contracts and grants to friends and family." Read Friedman's testimony for yourself: http://1.usa.gov/KjJaqz
I scanned through the testimony you provided the link to and will try to find the time to read through it in detail.
My impression is that, as with any big program there are oversight provisions. There appeared to be quite a few cases that were being investigated, but at the time of the testimony a lot of the investigations were in progress.
The testimony included the statement that much of the spending for the program was still pending.
Do you know if there is any follow up testimony or report?
Just stating that Solyndra was being investigated doesn't mean much. What were the conclusions?
I seem to recall hearing from somewhere (sorry - can't provide a link - maybe someone else can) that the investigation did not conclude that there were misdeeds.
..taken from provided testimony
"To date, our Recovery Act-related investigations have resulted in over $1 million in monetary recoveries and two criminal prosecutions"
...yeah, this is the mother of all cover-ups alright.
Here is some more from the paragraph you copied your text from:
"Schemes under investigation include the submission of false information in applications for funding, fraudulent claims for rebates, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, the directing of contracts and grants to friends and family, weatherization fraud to include mischarging, and other attempts to fraudulently obtain Recovery Act funds."
I don't know what "weatherization fraud to include mischarging" means...
Please note the list of issues that were being investigated.
The statement you quoted does not specify what the criminal prosecutions involved.
It is also clear that - as with any big program involving $$ there is oversight and audits that need to be done.
It is clear that this oversight was done and I assume continues.
Please note the attachment at the end of the document that lists 47 reports that have been published.
This is actually a really interesting document that has some detailed (!long!) explanation with pros and cons. Guess what - it could have been improved. Show me a government program that can't be improved - especially one that is done fast.
Another thing - $1 million out of how many billion?
If anybody is interested in the reports by the US Department of Energy, here is the link to the web page with all of them:
http://energy.gov/ig/calendar-year-reports/recovery-act/recovery-act-reports
"shown passive disinterest to the jobs crisis", Steve? I don't think so - their "disinterest" in that has actually seemed all to damned "active" to me.
Ooh, and as for that Yglesias line? "You can't fake that kind of bulls**t, it takes real conviction." Good one! I'm totally stealing that.
;-)
I am so frustrated with your great knowledge, that you are so onesided and never look at others point of view!
To whom are you addressing your comment?
America will never be able to fully recover until conservative lawmakers and Republican politicians stop their strategy of jobs sabotage and get on the page of helping this country, not just their own political aspirations. Mitt Romney and the other Republicans bashing the President for his jobs policies are going to have to surrender to reality soon enough and change their talking points or risk being laughed off the national stage. Millions of jobs were created last year, something every Republican has consistently lied about. Now is not the time to cut off the growth of jobs with a toxic conservative agenda of spending cuts and more government handouts to billionaires. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
"The logic is incoherent: for Republicans, when there's discouraging economic news, Obama deserves all the blame. When there's good economic news, Obama deserves none of the credit."
It's the whole two headed coin - heads the President isn't doing a good job, tails the GOP is doing its job and the President still loses. See when your "world view" is seen thru the prism of absurdity it makes absolute sense.
"When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." ...
The recession started in December 2007 - 54 months ago. As everyone knows, but conservatives deny, the economy was in a downward spiral about to go completely out of control when Obama took office. Yet Romney would have us believe that "[t]his crisis has been going on for 40 months." How much longer will the media allow him to continue lying ad nauseum before they call him out on it or will they just continue to look the other way?
Apparently Republicans in Congress have been so busy passing anti-women healthcare & anti-abortion bills that they cannot be bothered with trivial things like jobs. But of course the media ignores that, too.
Unless the traditional media decides to hold Romney & his Party accountable the voting public, none the wiser, will never know what hit them until after the elections which by then it will be too late. And the nation at-large will be the worse off for it.
Right, and Obama can't fix anything today because he has opposition in Congress.
But Bush is fully to blame for the 2008 crash even with all of Congress controlled by Democrats because... Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense.
Is it because Bush was a really amazing leader and Obama is incompetent?
Or is there some other reason you're using obvious double standards to assign blame to Bush and not Obama?
It is really simple. Jobs are a function of demand in an economy. De-leveraging debt means less spending or demand. Republicans believe you have to bribe the rich to spend. Sanity suggest that spending by the middle class creates mass aggregate demand and thereby the willingness to add workers and capital expenditures. But households are not increasing spending and neither are firms. Guess which sector is left to add spending; government. But we are in a stalemate about spending. So the alternative is suffering.
Rachel - PLEASE make note today that today marks the third anniversary of General Motors declaring bankruptcy! In light of today's unemployment numbers and the Republican spin being put on them, this is an anniversary worth noting. A great big thank-you to President Obama and a great big shame-on-you to Would-Be-President Romney!
2006-2008... Dem controlled House and Senate? 100% Bush fault.
2010-2012 split congress can't be Obama's fault?
Ok... sorry. I thought Obama was at least HALF the leader Bush was... my bad. Obama is such an incompetent he's considerably less than half the leader Bush was.
Happy now?
Or should we give Bush a pass on the economic collapse in 2008 and blame that in the 2 years of Democrats running Congress?
I'll agree with that too if that;'s your answer.
...
Let me guess; you've got double standards and don't consider these in any way comparable? Of course you don't... that's cute. Get back to me when you're willing to use basic logic.
Here are some facts:
Links:
http://artandhistory.house.gov/house_history/partyDiv.aspx
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
House:
From 2001 through 2006, the Republicans had the majority in the House. The Democrats did not have a majority in the House until 2007 (election was in 2006).
Senate:
In the 2001-2003, here is what happened:
Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.
2003 Republicans got the majority and held in until 2007
In 2007, the Senate was Democrats-49 Republicans-49 with Lieberman (Independent Democrat - I guess that is why the Dems were determined to be the majority) and Sanders (Independent).
By 2007 the damage had already been done - the recession actually started sometime in 2007 but the economy didn't fall off the cliff until the fall of 2008.
One of the causes - or at least one of the reasons it was so severe is due to elimination of key regulations of the financial sector - banks and also mortgages - that began during the Clinton administration.
I would be happy to continue the discussion, using facts and logic.
This is bad news only if you think that the economy should march lockstep in a single ever-increasing direction upward. Totally unrealistic. Let the lazy Republicans who were doing nothing while Bush policies were ruining the economy and are now doing nothing to help Obama repair the mess try to make political hay out of their obstructionist attitudes. If they are successful, they will be the ones that will have to raise taxes on the rich or see the entire economy enter a gigantic depression as we keep shedding public sector workers. After all, we did create 82,000 private sector jobs in a very crappy environment, didn't we?
Another thought occurs....exactly what were these geniuses doing while the economy tanked? Nothing, of course. That's what the Republican Party has bee doing for the last thirty years, spending like drunken sailors and paying for none of it.